Posts by adamah

130

Questions on Evolution and the Existence of God and...

by ILoveTTATT in

jw
friends

i know this is one huge rant, but i want to put my own questions and doubts in writing.. i am a fading jw who has become agnostic... i still believe in "god" and "jesus," but i simply cannot explain to people why i believe in them.

i just do.. about the existence of god: it is an infinite regress.

"all things were created by someone"... well... who created god?

adamah

Hi IluvTTATT,

Good questions!

IluvTTATT said- I am a fading JW who has become Agnostic... I still believe in "God" and "Jesus," but I simply cannot explain to people why I believe in them. I just do.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but according to the accepted definitions for describing belief in deities, if you self-identify as someone who still believes in God, you're a theist (and agnostic would say they don't know, since there's not enough evidence on which to make a decision). Your inability to explain the basis of your belief has NOTHING to do with it, only what you report that you believe....

You're raising some good objections about God's existence, but I'm skipping them to get to the evo stuff...

IluvTTATT said- It seems logical to me to separate Evolution and Abiogenesis, as they are two different topics altogether. A lot of churches and faiths have gone completely on the "we accept Evolution, but not Abiogenesis" bandwagon. "Evolution," the way I understand it, is just changes and changes and changes until one species becomes another species...

Actually, evo is defined as changes in the gene pool over time; you don't even have to get a new species (a process called 'speciation') for evolution to occur. In fact, you could have individuals with an identical ourward appearance (phenotype), and as long as one has a slightly-different set of genes, you have evolution. You can often see evidence for evolution in humans with your very own eyes, with different outward appearances of humanity causing the outward expressions of their different genotypes.

IluvTTATT said- 1. If evolution says that only the best survive, and we humble humans, self-named Homo Sapiens Sapiens, are the most intelligent species on this planet, why aren't we the ONLY species?

Yeah, evo doesn't say only the best survive (AKA survival of the fittest): that's a popular saying, but it's completely misleading. Instead, evo says that only those who are sufficiently adapted to survive in their environment survive! It's much less challeging than people think.

Fact is, even the terribly-maladapted who somehow manage to hang on for dear life to survive to pass on their genes to offspring do so, since that lends the genetic variability upon which natural selection may select from within the gene pool. Why does there need to be variability in the gene pool? Conditions change in the environment, and perhaps a trait that was a burden for the organism and actually had negative survival value under a certain condition might code for a trait that would provide the organism (and hence, the species) a survival benefit after a change in the environment occurs.

IluvTTATT said- 2. What's next, after humans?

We ARE the dominant species on the planet at the moment, and as we learn more about evo and genetics, we have the ability to effect its course (and already do, via medicine).

Of course, we think small mammals filled a niche that was vacated by extinction of large dinosaurs millions of years ago (after a meteor struck the Yucatan), allowing for homo sapiens to emerge as the dominant species on the Planet. And provided we don't wipe ourselves out via our stupidity via nuke proliferation and war, who knows where homo sapiens will end up?

(And if we do commit hari-kari via nuke war, I'm putting my $$$ on the cockroaches being poised to take over control, since they're resiliant to radiation poisoning).

IluvTTATT said- 3. Has actual evolution, i.e. the changes accumulating sufficiently to make ANOTHER species, been observed? If so, where? I would think that the smaller the species/the faster time to reproduce, the better chances to actually observe this.

You're right that it takes a REALLY long time for speciation to occur (over many generations), and hence why researchers use fruit flies and even better, bacteria.

Of the top of my head, we can see speciation in the process by looking at say, dogs (via artificial selection), eg a chihuahua and a great dane are essentially reproductively isolated from each other (due to their great size differential, and the difficulty in mating!) and a result of having their gene pools reproductively separated from the other, in essence they're unlikely to successfully reproduce "in the wild" (if allowed a chance).

Horses, donkeys, and mules also the result of splitting apart, where sterile offspring often result. Speciation has been observed in some species of insects like mosquitos over the past century and a half, eg:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_mosquito

Adam

27

JWDEFENSE youtube channel

by wannaexit in

jw
friends

wondering what to make of this youtube channel.

looks like it could be put out by wachtower.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/ucn6uoc8oxbgrhqqazu6unsq/videos.

adamah

Alphaman said-

If the video meets all JW current beliefs, makes the Watchtower Organization look good, and leaving negative comments is disabled, then the WTBTS could possibly not go after this one over copyright. Think Theocratic warfare.

Well, if the channel's not using JW-produced video (eg the Sparlock cartoons, which are the intellectual property of WTBTS, and copyrighted), the WTBTS can't say "boo" about their activity without stepping on the uploader's freedom of speech, since people are entitled to say whatever they want about the WT Society, whether positive or negative, "theocratic warfare" or not. They're just not allowed to use another person's intellectual property, or violate other's right to privacy in the process.

The ONLY problem I see with the "JW defender" channel from a legal standpoint is that they're using what might be a trademarked symbol owned by the WTBTS: that little blue "JW.org" emblem. The WT's legal department could file a complaint with YouTube over it, and they could shut the channel down (usually YT gives the uploader a chance to fix the infringement before killing the user's account).

The US Patent and Trademark Office lets you conduct searches by owner, and here's what comes up for trademarks owned by WTBTS:

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4806%3Ah7z8v3.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=Watchtower+Bible+and+Tract+Society&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24OW&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query

Maybe they filed under the jw.org trademark under a different name, but it's not showing up? In fact, the WT trademarks come up as 'dead', while the Awake! trademark shows as 'alive'. I can't find the JW.org trademark? Huh....

But when it comes to copyright infringement issues, YouTube uses an automated system called 'content ID scan', which periodically compares a database of owned property that is submitted by big interests (eg NBC Universal, Viacom, etc) to ALL content uploaded to YouTube (!), examining the video files for familiar patterns that will flag it as being claimed by content owners. The owner supposedly has to follow DMCA processes, but that doesn't always happen: I've had a few videos flagged, and usually file a counter-claim (citing fair use), but the last time YouTube just yanked one of my videos without allowing an appeals process. The content owners are not complaining about that, I'm sure!

87

Kim's call to HQ's...

by Newly Enlightened in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xltqvpy6i0q.

adamah

Outlaw said-

The difference is.. The WBT$ service desk is handing out public information..To the Public..Over the Phone..

The information asked about,is also public..It`s been Printed in WBT$ magazines.. The WBT$ Rep chose to lie about what was already in the public domain..From a WBT$ Phone dedicated to answering questions from the public.. Are the authorities really interested in charging sombody who has caught the WBT$ in a Lie?!.. I doubt it..LOL!!.. Maybe the WBT$ can be Charged for lying to the Public over the Phone..

This is not an issue of copyright infringement (as is indicated by mentioning the 'public domain' angle). It's a PRIVACY issue, and the U.S. courts ruled long ago that phone call participants have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and places of business (which is quite unlike when you're out and about in public, where someone often CAN record you without giving consent, depending on State laws).

Like I said, it's a good idea to consult a lawyer who knows Federal and State privacy laws before performing a stunt like this, since it may be illegal, depending on whether the person lives in an "all party, one-party, or two-party" state (It would likely be legal, if the caller lived in NY State and called Brooklyn, since NY State is a 'one-party' state; however, calling across state lines makes it a matter for Federal law, and becomes more confusing).

Uploading the video to YouTube is a separate legal matter, since that's an invasion of privacy issue (which is separate offense from the wiretapping laws), and is a separate civil matter, NOT a criminal matter (felony wiretapping).

But legalities aside, as an atheist I fail to see how flagrantly disregarding laws is consistent with claiming to be a Xian: it's doubly ironic to do so in the name of lying to other Xians to catch them lying (which isn't even against the law), esp when the subject is their interpretation and usage of 1 Timothy.

Adam

87

Kim's call to HQ's...

by Newly Enlightened in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xltqvpy6i0q.

adamah

Just be sure to check applicable State and Fed laws before violating them AND then posting the incriminating evidence to YouTube!

That's what Kenneth Tarr is learning the hard way, after he pranked-called and even bragged about it over social media and posted vids to YouTube, only to be arrested and charged by LAPD detectives with multiple counts of felony wiretapping by illegally recording phone calls without their permission. (CA is an 'all-consent' State, where all parties need to give their permission to be recorded over the phone; the CA law is one of the stiffest in the Nation, so Tarr is now looking at up to 3 yrs in jail and large fines):

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/17/21926419-prankster-who-hoaxed-top-nfl-nba-coaches-charged-with-eavesdropping?lite

When Tarr contacted Deadspin, he said, "I'm like the world's most safe criminal." And with delusions of grandeur dancing in his head, he even said this to a local sports reporter:

In November, Tarr told KNBC sports anchor Fred Roggin that he considered himself to be on the “new frontier of broadcast journalism and sports media.”

Who knows, maybe Tarr is counting on pleading insanity as his defense, but that's hardly the kind of publicity the ex-JW community needs by living up to the GB's very definition of apostate (which ironically is found in 1st Timothy, the subject of the call).

NY Times article: Defrocking of Methodist Minister Widens Split Over Gays

by adamah in

interesting article today over the growing schism within the methodist church due to ministers officiating gay marriages:.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/20/us/methodist-pastor-defrocked-over-gay-marriage-service.html?_r=0.

defrocking of minister widens split over gaysby laurie goodsteinpublished: december 19, 2013the rev.

adamah

Interesting article today over the growing schism within the Methodist Church due to ministers officiating gay marriages:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/20/us/methodist-pastor-defrocked-over-gay-marriage-service.html?_r=0

Defrocking of Minister Widens Split Over Gays

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

Published: December 19, 2013

The Rev. Frank Schaefer, a Methodist minister, was stripped of his clerical credentials on Thursday for violating church law by presiding at his son’s same-sex wedding. The punishment, imposed by the United Methodist Church in Pennsylvania, was requested by the church prosecutor to deter other ministers from blessing same-sex marriages.

Matt Rourke/Associated Press

(The Rev. Frank Schaefer with his wife after meeting with Methodist leaders on Thursday.)

But far from intimidating others, the trial and defrocking of Mr. Schaefer have galvanized a wave of Methodist ministers to step forward to disobey church prohibitions against marrying and ordaining openly gay people.

Members of the United Methodist Church, the nation’s third-largest Christian denomination, have been battling bitterly over homosexuality for four decades. The church now faces an increasingly determined uprising by clergy members and laypeople who have refused to cede, even after losing the most recent votes, at the Methodist convention last year, on proposals to change church teaching.

“After 40 years of playing nice and attempting a legislative solution, we will not wait any longer,” said Matt Berryman, a former Methodist pastor who said he turned in his credentials because he is gay. He now serves as the executive director of the Reconciling Ministries Network, a Methodist gay rights group.

In Philadelphia last month, 36 Methodist ministers recited the Declaration of Marriage on the steps of a Methodist church for two gay men in a 25-year relationship. In New York, Methodist clergy members have been triumphantly posting accounts on a blog of the same-sex marriages they have been performing.

And in what is considered a brazen act of church boundary-crossing, a retired San Francisco bishop, Melvin Talbert, flew in October to Birmingham, Ala., where same-sex marriage is not legal, to conduct a church ceremony for two gay men against the will of the local bishop. Bishops are considering bringing ecclesiastical charges against him.

Church conservatives, however, say they have the momentum. About a half-dozen more ministers are facing church trials, and the defrocking of Mr. Schaefer proves to them that church juries have the courage of their convictions. In addition, they say the church is losing members in its liberal-leaning regions and growing in conservative regions.

John Lomperis, the United Methodist director at the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a conservative religious think tank, said the same-sex weddings performed by Methodist clergy were “publicity stunts” that were backfiring.

“It’s very noisy, but I just don’t see it as being a sustainable campaign in the long run,” Mr. Lomperis said in an interview. “It’s like burning down a house to try to take it over from the residents.”

Mr. Schaefer is hardly the first Methodist minister to be defrocked for disobeying church teachings on homosexuality. Jimmy Creech was stripped of his credentials in 1999 for performing a same-sex ceremony. Irene Elizabeth Stroud, a lesbian living with her partner, was defrocked in 2005.

Mr. Schaefer said at a news conference on Thursday after his defrocking, “Here we are 10 years later, and they are doing the same thing.”

He added, “The church needs to recognize that things have changed and times are changing and people are changing.”

Mr. Schaefer has four children, three of whom are gay. He performed the wedding for his son, Tim, in Massachusetts in 2007 after same-sex marriage was legalized there.

Mr. Schaefer, who is 52, had been serving as the pastor of a small church in Lebanon, Pa., for 11 years when charges were brought against him this year, weeks before the church’s statute of limitations was set to expire. The man who brought the complaint was the son of a choir director whom Mr. Schaefer had removed, according to news reports and confirmed by Mr. Schaefer in an interview on Thursday.

The church’s Book of Discipline, which contains its law and doctrine, forbids same-sex marriage and the ordination of gay people, and says that homosexuality is “incompatible with Christian teaching.” Efforts to amend the Book of Discipline have been defeated by increasingly wide margins at the church’s quadrennial conferences as delegates representing the church’s growing branch in Africa have bolstered the votes of conservative Methodists in the United States.

Mr. Schaefer was found guilty last month by a 13-member jury of pastors of disobedience and violating the Book of Discipline. He was given 30 days to decide whether he would comply with church law.

At a short meeting Thursday morning at the church’s conference center in Norristown, Pa., Mr. Schaefer appeared before about 45 members of the church’s ministry board. He was asked, “Will you uphold the Book of Discipline in its entirety?”

He answered, “Unfortunately, I cannot.”

In an interview afterward, Mr. Schaefer said that as he got into the car to go home, his wife noticed he was shaking. “For 20 years, I’ve served this church, and it has now put me outside,” he said. “I find myself totally shunned, excluded. It just felt awful.”

He said he would not consider leaving the Methodist Church for a denomination that has changed its teaching on homosexuality.

“It’s not that easy when a church is your spiritual home,” he said. “All my children have been baptized in the United Methodist Church. I don’t know how to be a minister out of the United Methodist Church.”

He said his lawyers had already filed an appeal with a judicial body akin to a church appellate court.

Those watching the trial were stunned when Bishop Peggy Johnson, who leads nearly 900 United Methodist churches in Pennsylvania and who is Mr. Schaefer’s superior, posted a note on her blog this week, saying that she believed the prohibitions on gay ordination and marriage in the Book of Discipline were “discriminatory.”

The prohibitions, Bishop Johnson continued, taken together with the church’s message of inclusion, “has led to confusion by many from the outside of the church wondering how we can talk out of two sides of our mouth.”

Timothy Williams contributed reporting from New York, and Jon Hurdle from Philadelphia.

112

Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?

by KateWild in

so bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.

it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.

if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.

adamah

Gladiator said-

Perhaps we need a - Get Gods Back to Work Campaign.

LOL!Perhaps modern-day humans should do as the junior gods did in the Atrahasis myth, forming a union to go on strike?

95

I think my faith might be returning. Feeling very confused.

by jambon1 in

jw
friends

i've been out the organisation for around 8 years.

when i first left, im positive that i suffered from some sort of post traumatic stress.

i was very angry at myself for accepting the really bad parts of the religion that i strongly disagreed with.

adamah

BOTR said-

Almost every atheist here gives atheism a good name compared to Adam's rabid rants. They are over the top arguments - simply to argue.

More tone trolling, BOTR?

Oh, you seem to think atheists are a GROUP: not so, since aside from sharing a lack of a belief in God(s), there is no other agenda, no group to "represent" or to join, or to give a "good name" or "bad name" to. You're simply projecting your theological Xian bent onto others (again), whether it fits or not.

So please feel free to use this as an opportunity to exercise some self-control (a fruitage of the spirit, IIRC) and simply IGNORE what I write (I mostly overlook your stream-of-consciousness posts). There are no quizzes, and there is not a required reading list on JWN.

Adam

112

Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?

by KateWild in

so bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.

it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.

if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.

adamah

The Gladiator said-

Nothing sharpens their performance more than the threat of redundancy. They have to earn their keep like anyone else. It’s not as though they’re busy creating the world any more. They can’t just swan around in heaven all day eating ambrosia and passing judgment on hard working people.

Actually, the Sumerian creation myth dated to 1600 BC (Atrahasis) indicates that the Gods created men to do their work for them, when the minor Gods refused to work and went on strike!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atra-Hasis

Tablet I contains a creation myth about the Sumerian gods Anu, Enlil, and Enki, gods of sky, wind, and water, “when gods were in the ways of men” according to its incipit. Following the Cleromancy (casting of lots), sky is ruled by Anu, earth by Enlil, and the freshwater sea by Enki. Enlil assigned junior divines [6] to do farm labor and maintain the rivers and canals, but after forty years the lesser gods or dingirs rebelled and refused to do strenuous labor. Instead of punishing the rebels, Enki, who is also the kind, wise counselor of the gods, suggested that humans be created to do the work.

The mother goddess Mami is assigned the task of creating humans by shaping clay figurines mixed with the flesh and blood of the slain god Geshtu-E, “a god who had intelligence” (his name means “ear” or “wisdom”). [7] All the gods in turn spit upon the clay. After ten months, a specially made womb breaks open and humans are born.

And when you think about it, the minor gods refused to provide for the needs of their seniors (where sacrifice is a part of worship, to feed the deity), when that's EXACTLY what believers who worship Gods are doing to this day: they're keeping the so-called earthly representatives of the Gods well-fed, via their donations and tithes.

Adam

95

I think my faith might be returning. Feeling very confused.

by jambon1 in

jw
friends

i've been out the organisation for around 8 years.

when i first left, im positive that i suffered from some sort of post traumatic stress.

i was very angry at myself for accepting the really bad parts of the religion that i strongly disagreed with.

adamah

Ruby said- adamah, I don't agree that dogmatism and resistance to change stem from emotional factors although I agree that they may play a small part.

No? Then what do you think plays a role?

Ruby said- Are you familiar with the fascinating term availability heuristic?

Sure. Any particular reason for asking, or is that what you're suggesting plays more of a role in dogmatism?

Are you familiar with the 'affect heuristic', which is associated with making subconscious emotional 'snap-decisions' (colloquially-referred to as "trusting one's gut")? Of course, the need to protect one's faith as a Xian means adopting an appropriate faith-based affect heuristic, such the defenses trigger at the perception of a threat in order to shut down the cognitive processes: that's hardly anything BUT an emotional reaction.

That stated, ALL such heuristic models of decision-making suffer from the same limitation of being only models of what they attempt to explain, where the actual-decision-making processes are not as cut-and-dry as falling into only one category or the other, but result from a lifetime of influences, physiologically arising primarily from the interactions of many different neurons in the brain.

Even examining the process by which certain heuristic processes are adopted often involves their fulfilling certain emotional needs (heuristics DO have an adaptive value, and hence survival benefit), but it's unreasonable to think we'll ever be able to 'tease out' which decisions are made for what reason, and how much each factor played an influence (at least, anytime in the near future). Heck, JWs intentionally inculcate the adoption of certain decision-making processes, driven by a theocratically-driven heuristic.

That stated, this IS an ex-JW board and thus is a sub-population of JWs, who are known to recruit and sell a message to those possessing certain pre-existing biases, attracted by the use of certain emotional lures, such that potential recruits are more swayed than the general population by eg emotional appeals (eg love bombing, a desire to live forever, and to see their resurrected loved ones again, etc).

The JW message is not necessarily one that would appeal to say, a trained palentologist, esp once they realized that JW's were YEC, a belief which flys in the face of the evidence which they've been exposed to in their profession.

Adam

112

Why does Organic Chemistry prove God's exists?

by KateWild in

so bring it on, and lay the evidence on me, kate (but perhaps you should start a new thread).-adam.

it does not prove god exists, there is no substantial evidence god is real.

if one is a self labeled atheist, one has no desire to see gods fingerprints in organic chemistry.

adamah

So setting aside the weak-sauce analogies and appeals to experiences of men who lived a few millenia ago (oh, and an exquisitely ironic photo posted by Perry!), I'm still waiting for Kate to explain how organic chemistry indicates God's existence or has any influence on the probability of their existence...